Moderator: Super Moderators
Pytorb wrote:Also I don't think wood can take runes. If that's the case you might want to mention it in the rules.
Pytorb wrote: My apologies, I missed the bit about prerequisites. My first quibble is withdrawn.
Pytorb wrote:Don't know, I was just reflecting the CRPG. You could make it more difficult for wood to take runes e.g. Journeyman for 1 and Master for 2 or even just Master for 1. By allowing bows to have runes the question of does a rune on a bow empower the arrow with that ability needs to be answered. A rune of striking would work just as well regardless, as arguably would a rune of devestation, but does a rune of elements (fire) on a bow mean that an arrow bursts into flame as it leaves the bow? Undoubtedly cool but is it DA?
shonuff wrote:You mean you missed something in that wall of text?
shonuff wrote:Honestly, no idea. I was thinking that bows could take runes in DA, until you mentioned that they couldn't... and then I was all "Oh, yeah, they couldn't take runes." However, in the P&P RPG, I would assume that bows can take runes, if only because ranged attacks are weaker overall than melee, IMO.
empyrien wrote: Firstly, the costs for construction seem way too low. I'd start by having a look at the cost for materials to make poisons (which are a consumable item) and I'd say you want to be multiplying them by at least a factor of 10 to 100 to get an idea of the materials cost for a permanent superior/masterwork item.
empyrien wrote:Secondly, I think constructing a masterwork item should be an advanced test rather than a single roll, again based off a comparison to the poison making rules. In game time these things should take days (or weeks at the high end) to construct. You could still incorporate the consequences of failure.
empyrien wrote:I would also remove the reroll from the novice ablity.
shonuff wrote:Yeah, I thought about the cost a bit. The issue I have is that I have a hard time justifying increasing the cost (too much) to make a superior quality weapon. The finest steel is still steel. If you wanted to throw in gems or something, that would greatly increase the cost (for a communication score increase), but I couldn't see adding too much for just balance.
LOL. But every talent has a reroll!
An advanced test sounds good. And using my system, a PC can make 2 daggers a day (might be a bit low -- I've never made a dagger) to about 20 days for a maxed 2-handed sword. ...
shonuff wrote:Maybe not as individual materials, but maybe again as tiers. Increasing by material seems too drawn out, IMO. What about Tier 0: 2, Tier 1: 3, Tier 2: 6, Tier 3: 9.
shonuff wrote:Maybe increase prices for later tiers, although I find that difficult to justify... the material components of a veridium long sword would be the same as the material components for a dragonbone long sword (except for the dragon bone and veridium... which my costs didn't cover regardless).
Loswaith wrote:Typicallly speaking to make a decent sword (something that will last longer than a few battles) takes about 40+ hours, so a dagger could be churned out in likely 10-15. However it's hard to nail down actual times because rarely did a single person do all the work, nor were records of times it took to do each individual stage particularly well kept.
empyrien wrote: That could work as well, and fits in a bit better with the way the materials are divided in your talent. I would drop the Tier 0 max to 1 bonus though.
empyrien wrote:It is still not clear to me whether you are keeping the RAW superior benefits for materials.
empyrien wrote:Okay, I'm a bit confused now. Are you dividing the cost into "consumables" that go into the forging of the item and the cost of item materials itself? In either case, I think there is plenty of justification for increasing the costs as the material increases in quality. From the books it is made clear that dragonbone requires an extremely hot forge to work for example, and superior materials would correspondingly require superior consumables to be used in the process of making the item.
The bottom line is, if the PCs want to forge a Starfang-like sword, they better be paying out hundreds of gold in materials.
shonuff wrote:So... cost divided by 5, then? That would mean a regular dagger could be made in about a day, whereas a masterwork star axe with 3 runes would take a little under a month.
And you're right that heating a forge would be more expensive, but it wouldn't be that much more expensive (or maybe it would... haha).
Basically, I'm assuming that the common materials and consumables to make a veridium longsword would be about the same to make a star-metal one (again excluding the cost of the veridium or the star-metal). Or at least close enough that the rules would require much more detail than I feel goes into a game.
As for Starfang, if a PC were to make it (and the star-metal was possessed), I don't think it would cost hundreds of gold to make. However, the superior materials are where the real cost/questing comes into play.
empyrien wrote: If you were using advanced tests then the idea would be to set a success threshold and then say each test takes X hours and hence the number of tests it takes to exceed the threshold determines how long the item takes to create.
Obviously the more powerful an item is the higher the TN for each test and the higher the success threshold should be.
empyrien wrote: The dragonbone forge described in Dragon Age: The Calling sounds a lot more expensive than your run of the mill forge.
empyrien wrote: I have some smithing experience, and there are lots of intricacies involved with the specifics of the materials you are working with. Okay, so maybe you just want to keep a regular pommel, hilt and cross guard on your starmetal sword, but you can bet that the flux/quenching materials/forge fuel and equipment costs are going to be specific to that type of metal.
empyrien wrote: As long as the effort is commensurate with the quality of the weapon, that is fine. Materials like starmetal should be quested for rather than bought, but the point is that they are "valued" appropriately. Even if the PCs already possessed sufficient starmetal to forge Starfang through a difficult quest, I still feel they should be contributing 25+ gold towards the construction cost.
empyrien wrote: Dragon Age is a fairly "low magic" setting; masterwork/magical items should be rare and prized possessions. Whatever system you use, the most important thing is to impress upon the players the true value of their items.
Loswaith wrote:Having crafting based around a monetary value can help working out a crafting system as you can set a 'monetary value' to a days work (or any other unit of time). Then taking a base material value each days work adds to that value untill you have the listed price of the item, thus indicating the item is completed, and incedentially how long it took to make.
shonuff wrote:I could see that, but without knowing specifics, it is difficult to assign values. Also, too many rules and caveats would, IMO, bog the system down.
It's also a "low money" game... so a little money goes a LOONNNGGGG way.
Users browsing this forum: sloblock and 8 guests